Ph.D. candidate Ashli Wright knows science has a problem – and she doesn’t mean the actual problem that someone studies and tries to solve using the scientific method.
Rather, she recognizes that potentially revolutionizing, even life-impacting science often does not resonate with the public. Worse, it sometimes is ignored or even distorted.
Just read here the crazy example she shares to prove her point: an article in which a writer states that doctors believe that inhaling deeply when someone passes wind will protect against cancer.
Modern science journalism: when you sniff so many farts you start to believe it prevents cancer
Richard Feynman had a great tidbit about journalism.
He described it, "....sometimes when I'm home and reading the newspaper I will see an article about some new breakthrough in science. Since this is my area of specialty, I'll of course read it, but won't make it 2 sentences before I start spotting the errors. Sometimes the journalist completely reverses cause and effect of the experiment they are describing -- a wet streets cause rain scenario. Other times the journalist will simple draw the complete opposite conclusion from the stated results. Normally I will get so frustrated I will abandon the article an angry flip the page and then read a seemingly thoughtful and insightful article on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict."
His quip highlights the truth. When you don't know much about a subject - say the Israeli - Palestinian conflict - then mainstream articles can appear insightful and well researched. When you are an expert, you spot the glaring errors and oversimplifications.
Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect
Yes, it was Gell-Mann not Feynman!
Plus Michael Crichton who was friends with Gell-Man
https://themindcollection.com/gell-mann-amnesia-effect/
Relying on television news is worse than print media
This is true in tech. I have witnessed it for years. It's one of the things that woke me up.
Who needs peer review when you’ve got flatulence based breakthroughs? 😂
This isn’t about science itself, this is about how science is communicated
Was just messing around lol
I get what you’re saying journalism these days has hit such a low that half the articles out there sound so ridiculous you regret even clicking them.
I just read about Schrodinger’s asshole
😑
👀
😵💫
😱
Use Reddit and X
Why though?
Since journalism today is a joke
Too many incompetent and unqualified journalists today
For science topics you get more feedback on social media
Makes sense! Thank you
I find my truth by sitting in silence. No body outside of myself can tell me anything that I know to be true.
This hits home. When talking about my own science, i try to make sure to be as accurate yet accessible as possible. However, when reading other people's stuff, i rarely go towards the original article. And i do sometimes fall prey to the temptation of sharing the clickbaity article here as it'll yield more engagement and sats. Even when i know the clickbaity stuff is full of shit. Can't blame the journalists who need subscriptions, so the only one to blame is myself.
Holy shit man you cracked the code!
We need to get everyone together to sniff cow farts in order to save us from the climate apocalypse!
I've always thought that journalists are notable for their arrogance.
They think they know everything. He has an opinion about everything, but most of the time in a very simple way
"The doctor thinks he is God. The journalist is sure"
it doesn't differs from Inca's human sacrifice "science"
It was always there, so easy, so available